Open letter in support of adopting the Nordic model in Canada garners over 800 signatures

Last month an open letter signed by 300 academics encouraged Canadian politicians to support the full decriminalization of prostitution in Canada. Today, a letter signed by over 800 feminists and allies calls on politicians to look towards the Nordic model — a model which decriminalizes prostitutes, criminalizes pimps and johns, and institutes services and supports for those who wish to exit the industry — as a solution to the issue of prostitution and sex trafficking in Canada. The model has been successful in Sweden since 1999, has since been adopted by Norway and Iceland, and has been recommended by French parliament and EU Parliament. It is a feminist model that focuses explictily on the gender inequality inherent to the sex industry.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada,
Mr. Thomas Mulcair, MP, Leader of the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada,
Mr. Justin Trudeau, MP, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada,
Mr. Jean-François Fortin, MP, Interim Leader of the Bloc Québécois,
Ms. Elizabeth May, MP, Leader of the Green Party of Canada

April 23, 2014

Dear Sirs and Madam,

We—the undersigned—are women who work in different capacities to end violence against women and to protect and advance women’s rights to equality. Prostitution is a practice in which women’s subordination to men is inherent and lived out repeatedly. Consequently, we are writing to you today to urge you to support the “Nordic approach” to legislation on prostitution for Canada, because it includes legislation, intensive social supports, and public education strategies, all designed to reduce and eliminate prostitution.

We are aware of the March 27 open letter from the Gender and Sexual Health Initiative at the University of British Columbia (GSHI), which calls for decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution, including buyers and profiteers, on the grounds that this is the only “evidence‑based” policy option.

The use of the term “evidence-based” has become a smear used by those supporting the sex industry to suggest that those who oppose it in the name of women’s equality are arguing from a position of nothing more than anecdote or opinion. The list of signatories implies that only those with formal credentials can “research” or interpret evidence. We reject both of these premises. Evidence about the harms of prostitution is gathered by academic researchers, survivors of prostitution and those working on the front-line. That evidence proves that prostitution is violence against women.

This is not only a dispute about evidence; it is a dispute about goals and principles, and legislators will have to decide carefully which principles they wish to uphold, and which goals they wish to pursue, for women in Canada. The evidence in the same studies and government reports cited in the GHSI letter supports intensive efforts, worldwide, to reduce and eliminate prostitution. All reports and studies on prostitution confirm that, as the Ontario Court of Appeal said in Bedford,“prostitution is inherently dangerous in virtually any circumstance.”[1] Merely attempting to reduce the ancillary dangers of prostitution is an inadequate, and in our view, discriminatory strategy.

The signatories to the GHSI letter believe that prostitution, or ‘sex work’, is sex between consenting adults; that a bright line can be drawn between ‘sex work’ and trafficking and child prostitution; and that a harm reduction strategy is all that is necessary to moderate the worst effects of the commercial sex industry. We believe that prostitution constitutes violence against women because it is a practice of subordination and exploitation that is gendered, raced, and classed; that, as the Supreme Court of Canada found in Bedford, most women cannot be said to choose prostitution,[2] and consequently, in the experience of women, any line between prostitution, trafficking and child prostitution is more artificial than real. Therefore, we believe that a strategy that affirms the human dignity of women and girls is essential and the only approach consistent with Canada’s principles of equality.

A Women’s Equality Framework

First of all, any new approach to prostitution must be set in a women’s equality framework and reflect the fact that equality for women is a fundamental principle of Canadian law, enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and set out in human rights legislation that governs employment and services in all jurisdictions in the country. Prostitution is a social institution that both manifests and embeds the inequality between women and men, perpetuating women’s subordination to men, and their status as sexual commodities for men’s use. In Canada, as elsewhere, men are overwhelmingly buyers and women are the ones being sold. It is not sufficient in the face of these facts to take an approach that might merely reduce the harms that surround prostitution, when prostitution itself is a reinforcement of women’s subordination.

Further, the evidence is clear, including in affidavits filed by both the claimants and the defendants in the Bedford case, that women enter into prostitution because of economic need and profound social disadvantage. As it makes no sense to penalize women for their sexual, social, and economic inequality, we endorse the legislative approach of the Nordic model, that is, to decriminalize those—usually women— who are being bought and sold, but to apply criminal sanctions to buyers, pimps, and those who profit from the sale of women’s bodies. The criminal law by itself is not a solution to the inequality problem that prostitution represents, but it is essential, in our view, that the criminal law convey a clear message about women’s equality in Canada: in this case, the message that men’s purchase of sex is an egregious and impermissible violation of equality rights.

Who is in Prostitution?

Most women in prostitution in Canada are there because of poverty, homelessness, addictions, lack of social supports, racism, and the many harsh impacts of colonialism on Aboriginal communities and families. Aboriginal women and girls are disproportionately represented in street prostitution and among women in prostitution who have been murdered. In British Columbia, as the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution (AWCEP) has documented, Asian women are disproportionately represented in indoor prostitution, in venues such as massage parlours, where they are advertised to clients as ‘exotic.’ Many women enter prostitution as children; many have histories of child sexual abuse. Most say they would leave prostitution if they could.

These are well‑established facts. Prostitution is evidence of, and entrenches, sex, race, and class hierarchies. In the face of this, it is wholly inaccurate to call prostitution sex between consenting adults or to explain women’s presence in prostitution as choice, when the choice of women to be in prostitution, or to leave it, is so heavily constrained. Prostitution for poor, racialized women in Canada cannot be called liberty.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) has made a public call for help to stop the buying and pimping of Aboriginal women, and to stop the poverty and abuse that funnels them into prostitution. NWAC has said that its goal is to “end the prostitution of women and girls through legal and public policy measures that recognize the state’s obligations to 1) provide for basic needs and 2) protect women and girls from male violence.” The Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution (AWCEP) makes the same call. We support NWAC and AWCEP and join our voices to theirs.

It is apparent from the facts about women in prostitution that concerted and comprehensive social program intervention is required to prevent women and girls from entering prostitution and to assist them to leave it. Well‑designed interventions by Canada’s governments, with long‑term commitments to address the social and economic disadvantage of women and girls, and particularly of Aboriginal and other racialized women and girls, will be needed, not just piecemeal short‑term exit services, drop‑in centers, or safe houses. Creating conditions that minimize the risk of women entering prostitution, and genuinely helping them to leave it, requires providing women and girls with adequate alternative sources of income, including social assistance sufficient to meet basic needs, adequate housing, access to all levels of education, decent work, child care, and counseling, addiction, and mental health services.

On this point too we find the Nordic model helpful, because it is clear that criminal law, by itself, is not a sufficient solution to the profound inequality that prostitution represents. Genuine programmatic and budgetary commitments by governments are also necessary to address the deeply rooted social and economic disadvantages of women and the history of sexism, racism, and colonialism that underlie prostitution.

Why Canada Should Not Legalize Buying, Pimping and Profiting

Legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution has been tried in the Netherlands, Germany, the state of Nevada, some states in Australia, and New Zealand. Such an approach means that governments and societies accept that there is an underclass of women (defined by some combination of poverty, race and addiction) who can continue to be exploited in prostitution, even though prostitution is inherently an institution of sex inequality and violence. We do not agree that prostitution is acceptable for any women, or that the goal of equality between women and men can be abandoned for some women.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) flatly rejects the prospect of indoor prostitution in legalized brothels as an advance for Aboriginal women and girls. They point out that Aboriginal women and girls who are in street prostitution are unlikely to move indoors because poverty and racism keep them in the most dangerous forms of prostitution. Even if this were not the case, NWAC finds that, over time, Aboriginal women and girls have been shifted from institution to institution by settler governments—residential schools, group homes, prisons. The brothel appears to be the most recent institution that is considered better and safer for Aboriginal women. But this is not equality for Aboriginal women and girls. As AWCEP knows from the experience of its members, indoor prostitution is no answer; it merely puts hard walls around the inequality of poor and racialized women, and leaves it unchanged.

Further, legalization and decriminalization, as an approach, renders the men who are buyers, pimps, and prostitution entrepreneurs invisible; their activities become protected, legal, and normalized. We believe that this is a wrong approach: men must be held accountable when they subordinate and exploit women. Equality for women cannot be achieved in Canada if we are unwilling to engage with the cruel reality that men exploit women in prostitution.

Even within the limited goal that legalization sets for itself – i.e., to reduce the harms that surround prostitution – the evidence does not show that it has succeeded. The most recent comprehensive study of prostitution and trafficking in one hundred and fifty countries finds that countries that have legalized prostitution show an increased inflow of trafficked persons, and growth in the size of the prostitution industry.[3] Government reports from Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand say that street prostitution persists,[4] and that there is little improvement in the conditions of women in prostitution.[5] The violence inherent in prostitution is accepted by legalization, and the violence regularly associated with prostitution does not disappear.

In addition, what is legalized and normalized is not just individual prostitution transactions, but the prostitution industry. It not only becomes legal for individual men to purchase access to women’s bodies, but also legal to own and run a business that sells access to women’s bodies, or for employers in isolated work locations to provide men access to women for sex as an aspect of employment. For Canada to take this step would be both dangerous and discriminatory.

Where Should Canada Stand?

Canada has a history of commitment to women’s equality, to racial equality, and to vigorous social programs as a means of creatinga more egalitarian society in which the basic needs of all Canadians are met. In addition the rights of Aboriginal peoples, and of Aboriginal women to live free from violence, are set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recently endorsed by Canada. Consistent with Canada’s long‑standing commitments to equality, we urge you now to support a Nordic‑model approach to new legislative, programmatic, and public education strategies to reduce and eliminate prostitution in Canada.

We do not accept prostitution as a solution to women’s poverty; we want something much better for Canada’s poor and racialized women and girls. We believe you do too, and we urge you to act on your commitments to women and to an egalitarian Canada.

10 Comments Already

polarcontrol-April 23rd, 2014 at 11:29 pmnone
Comment author #167578 on Open letter in support of adopting the Nordic model in Canada garners over 800 signatures by Feminist Current

I guess Canada has also ratified the United Nations Convention against Transnational Crime and its Protocols? The Palermo Protocol Article 9 (para 5) says:

“States Parties shall adopt or strengthen legislative or other measures,
such as educational, social or cultural measures, including through bilateral and
multilateral cooperation, to discourage the demand that fosters all forms of
exploitation of persons, especially women and children, that leads to trafficking”

It should be clear that legalisation/decriminalization of prostitution normalises buying sex and thus increases demand. To meet the supply, trafficking increases.

Isn’t decriminalization thus in contradiction with the Palermo Protocol?

That would suggest an element of logical thinking around reality rather than opinion posing as reality such as the sex industry promotes. Thought the exposure of the implication that only the pro sex trafficking lobby has the right to call their research ‘evidenced’ was really to the point too, am so fed up of pro trafficking/slavery trying to pull a constant fast one over everyone’s heads by their refusal to acknowledge that legalising demand feeds slavery.

Margaret McCarroll-April 24th, 2014 at 7:00 amnone
Comment author #167585 on Open letter in support of adopting the Nordic model in Canada garners over 800 signatures by Feminist Current

Meghan – this is off topic for this thread (i wish we had a general forum on this site for issues that we encounter on a daily basis) – the christopher hambrook case illustrates the deep flaws in bill c279 which i understand has passed the House and is awaiting approval in the Senate – as it stands any man can declare himself transgender and have completely open access to women and girls in safe spaces – a search of the internet reveals dozens if not hundreds of assaults committed by these men – anything said in protest is said to be transphobic – has the world gone stark raving mad ,,,,,, i have written to one senator requesting that the bill not be passed in the senate but i’m not politically savvy and any suggestions for activism that you can give us in your column are very much appreciated – thank you for the work you do

Missfit-April 24th, 2014 at 7:22 amnone
Comment author #167586 on Open letter in support of adopting the Nordic model in Canada garners over 800 signatures by Feminist Current

The sex industry lobby’s push to normalize the idea that prostitution is equivalent to sex between consenting adults and just a benign business transaction is a dangerous lie. With dire consequence for the most disadvantaged women on the planet.

“Animals”, are you serious? Not that I would be surprised to hear about sexual libertarians promoting bestiality, after all people are really critical of it so it must be the height of “transgression” and “sexual boundary pushing” and therefore a good thing, right? At least that’s what they would have us believe. I suspect that a lot of the “sexual boundaries” libertarians want to destroy are either there for a good reason or they were set up by women for women or both.

They may accuse other people of characterising humanity as brainwashed, but they sure seem to be under the impression that any woman who disagrees with them has internalised “sex negativity” from the culture. Even if we grant that the culture contains “sex negativity” there is way less “sex negativity” (in mainstream culture) than there is promotion of gender conformity and yet they insist that it is wrong to argue that women are indoctrinated into femininity. Sexual libertarianism has more inconsistancies that a fantasy novel.

Derrington-April 26th, 2014 at 9:44 amnone
Comment author #167681 on Open letter in support of adopting the Nordic model in Canada garners over 800 signatures by Feminist Current

I say animals because there is a fair amount of bestiality on line now in porn … Which is a totally against the notion of its all consensual … How can a sheep or dog consent to sex with a human? Same with children and enslaved women … Its totally nonsensical but the pro sex lobby simply close their ears and chant its all good over and over …